Revolutionary would be printing more 3d printers to make them widespread. Printing guns is premature at this point for 3d printers. After they are widespread, if someone prints guns it will have no consequence to the rest of us.

However legality is only a small part of being able to *actually* to do something. In any country whatever you do is going to be scrutinized based on it's popularity first and foremost. With the authorities, the neighbors, the population, job, friends and family. And many of those can easily stop you from doing something, especially if they have wide support. Even if *they* are breaking the law. It's called a free society, and the paper law is only a small part of it. We take advantage of it all the time. Many things are illegal on paper, but so immensely popular, nobody can really stop it. The gray area is very big, really.

I guess I actually sounded legit, I didn't make the irony evident enough. Say "America" and "USA" twenty times in any phrase and they will eat up whatever. Even if you tell them to waste their money, buy wasteful dirty things, and then buy the "solution" so they dont choke to death, buying bottled air forever, if they want to breathe properly.

That makes it bad for the American economy and interests. It will sacrifice jobs in the energy industry in the name of some liberal, unproven, uncientific, utopian, dreamy, touchy-feely ideals and global warming paranoia, proposing that investing less in American energy is necessary and even productive. People who buy diesel, gas, and oil products are Americans who believe in invesing in power for their productivity, enterprise, and lifestyle. It is simple math, the power-to-weight ratio of any combustion engine has simply never been beat.

In addition, stopping global warming will waste an opportunity for an entire future upcoming market and jobs in the unique products, research, and know-how using exclusive US technology for cleaning up an environment and keeping Americans and their clients supplied with clean, breathable air.

I would assume they did lots of research and concluded that people will pay that value for that service.

The money is at the crux of the matter. The technology, politics, legislation, public opinion, will all follow once it is decided who gets the money. As I see it, at this point the money basically goes to the auto and fuel industries, and they are behind much of what people are debating about. The people spending the money are mostly disorganized and not aware of the size of their financial outlays, or not seeing many options. If you get together a bunch of companies which spend enormous amounts of money on transportation, and are not profiting from this business, I think we will have a significant lobby group. Supermarkets, stores, consumers, manufacturers, delivery companies, farmers, most businesses simply spend huge amounts just getting their stuff around. They have no option but to pay out for the use of trucks, drivers, fuel, taxes, insurance, and roads, mostly. If a cluster of non-trucks-and-oil companies in big cities get together with city governments to find ways to get rid of their trucks, the traffic, noise, and expense associated with them, that might be successful. Say if 2000 stores in NYC, SF, or London, got allied with city government and some tech companies, to invent some federated-automated-electric-night-truck-drones-delivery system downtown, that might work.

Now we won't transfer our warez over any wires or IP numbers at all, and will just teleport the data all over the place.

If you don't have to pay the salary of the driver, and the insurance of the car, and the fuel costs less, suddenly just hiring a car every time you want to go somewhere becomes much, much cheaper. Perhaps many people won't even own a car any more.

I have heard of many cities where driverless subways are a reality for many years now.

Given a huge economic motivation of every activity that spends money on delivery, transportation, fuel costs, parking, risk, etc, it is quite possible that most cars and trucks will be converted to driverless, and drivers who insist on driving, will simply have to pay more in insurance, parking, etc.

Not too different, arguments and many other apparenly innocent things cause accidents all the time. In fact accidents figure quite heavily in the obituaries in most places, especially for people under 60, at which point they start dying mostly of cancer and heart disease. Driving is more like a adventure sport than people are aware, lots of risks, adventure, adrenaline, and costs involved.

GPS is not even close to being enough data to drive cars. It has to be intensely based on sensors and cameras, with some extreme image processing, environment building, and prediction. Tons of unpredictable things happen in traffic, that depend on vision. Seeing signs, road stripes, seeing the road when the stripes are wrong, the other cars, predicting the other cars actions, seeing and predicting actions for pedestrians and bicycles, seeing brake lights, debri and obstacles on the road, etc.

Likely it will evolve quickly through driverless > self-parking > self-fueling > outsourced service, until you simply make a call, say where you want to go, and something shows up and takes you there.

Straight line: Nowhere in the world do you get a straight line for most routes. Only in small roadside towns, and the salt flats. Not even planes fly in a straight line to their destination - there are designated flight paths - air roads, if you wish.